Roswell Approves Term Limits

North Fulton

ROSWELL – In Roswell Mayor Jere Wood's first term, after unseating 30-year incumbent W.L. "Pug" Mabry, he thought mayoral term limits would be a good idea. The City Council at the time rejected the idea.

At the start of Wood's fourth term, he reintroduced a resolution again to limit the mayoral terms. This time the council took him up on it at its Jan. 20 council meeting. Since by statute, term limits cannot be retroactive, Wood's fourth term does not count. Therefore Wood himself could serve until 2026.

"I think that as an institution, we should limit the terms of the mayor. It is very easy to stay in office if you don't take any positions. Forty-nine percent of the voters [in the last election] said I should move on already," Wood said.

Wood said he thought term limits would encourage a mayor to have an agenda and pursue it. Conversely, he did not see the need to limit council positions. He said he has seen a steady turnover on council that allows for a mixture of experience and fresh ideas.

Wood had initially asked for a limit of two terms, but some on the council voiced concerns. Councilwoman Nancy Diamond wondered if two terms were enough for a mayor to accomplish an agenda. Orlans said the mayor and council all had term limits already, set by the voter.

"They are the ones who ought to have the say in goes and who stays," he said.

In the end, the compromise was for three terms.

All members of Roswell's appointed members of boards and commissions will also be limited to three consecutive terms. The idea again is to bring fresh blood on board with new ideas.

Former members could return after a hiatus, just as a three-term mayor could after sitting out an election.

A Modest Proposal for the Fed: Term Limits for Chairmen

Wall Street Journal

By Jon Hilsenrath

Ben Bernanke’s bloody confirmation battle is yet another sign that Congress, and the public more broadly, are looking for change at the nation’s central bank. Congress is playing with many different ideas for how to do that: 1) Fire Mr. Bernanke by denying him a second term (something that’s looking less likely as pledges of ‘yes’ votes from the Senate trickle in); 2) Strip the Fed of its power to regulate banks; 3) Give Congress’s Government Accountability Office the power to audit Fed decisions; 4) Give Congress more say on the governance of regional Fed banks. Each of these ideas has a flaw … GAO audits, for instance, could invite congressional meddling on tough decisions about raising interest rates. Taking regulation away from the Fed isn’t necessarily going to make regulation better.

Here’s a proposal that hasn’t come up, but maybe ought to be on the table: Term limits for Fed chairmen. Two terms, eight years, and then you step down to a governor’s job, which gets 14 years, or leave.

It has the merit of addressing a problem that may actually have helped to cause the crisis. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan ran the Fed for nineteen years. Critics make the argument that the Fed became complacent during the latter years of his reign, keeping interest rates too low for too long, treating banks with light-touch regulation and underestimating building risks in the financial system. Because the economy seemed to do so well for so long, it became harder over time to second-guess the approach championed by Mr. Greeenspan. One example: Edward Gramlich, the late former Fed governor, tried to raise alarms about subprime mortgages, but he got nowhere.

If the Fed chairman were subjected to a limit of two terms it could help ensure that one person or set of views wouldn’t come to dominate the central bank again. It would be a simple move that voters would understand and populists would likely appreciate. It’s hard to see how it would threaten the Fed’s cherished independence – if anything it would insulate the Fed from political meddling because a chairman would know that there would be no point to pleasing political masters because the job runs out after eight years. The presidency of the European Central Bank runs for eight years – and that seems to be working well.

It fits in with the more consensus-driven approach that Mr. Bernanke has built over four years. On a personal level, if he gets another four years on the job, it’s hard to imagine him wanting even more after that.

“It would accomplish the goal of giving the public a greater sense of oversight without creating undue political influence,” says Simon Gilchrist, a Boston University economist and specialist on central banking. “It would also have the benefit of forcing the Fed to be more articulate about its specific goals and policies,” he said, because it would de-emphasize the power of single chairman.

Marvin Goodfriend, former director of research at the Richmond Fed official who is now a professor at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, is less enthusiastic. “Imposing term limits on a central bank chairman is not necessary or sufficient to produce effective monetary policy independence,” he says.

Next After Scott Brown: Term Limits

The Pilot

The election of Scott Brown as senator from Massachusetts sends a loud message that cannot be ignored.

This Blue state should have been a shoo-in for the Democrats, but the people of Massachusetts, like most of the nation, have had enough and said so at the polls. Let us pray the message resonates next November.

Next on our agenda: term limits. The move to hold our senators and congressmen to a maximum of 12 years is quietly progressing. A group located right here in Moore County, the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits Inc., has already signed up two candidates who are willing to serve, if elected, no longer than a specified period of time. We wish them luck in what is long overdue.

Congressmen are, by and large, vehemently opposed to term limits, for it curtails what has become a fat-cat career, and they will go down scratching and screaming before they give in to this proposal.

Some other Americans oppose it because they fear we will lose good people if terms are limited. They have a point. That is the downside of term limits, and despite the tendency of people like me to tar everyone with the same brush, Congress does have some great Americans. But they are a tiny minority, and losing them might be a small price to pay for saving our nation and Constitution from the hands of a greedy majority.

Congress has come a long way since the Founding Fathers. During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.

From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

Obviously this was never conceived as a full-time job or career. But the current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year - which, when you add in the many perks that pay for offices and staff and subsidized health care and pension, etc., make this a plum position well worth hanging on to.

This largesse, voted on by Congress itself, is far more than most Americans can ever hope to make. Which is why we find most efforts of this body geared to one goal: getting re-elected.

Once you get your foot in the door, it is fairly easy to stay there. The incumbent has the edge - in getting publicity, raising money and reaching voters. That leads to the real perk: seniority, which puts you at the head of the table in committees.

Consider someone like Charles Rangel. He represents a tiny little district in Harlem. The people there like him because of the earmarks he brings home. So they continually vote him in. That would be OK if he represented only them. But, as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee (in charge of the tax code), he affects the rest of us, and we did not elect him.

No matter that Mr. Rangel is a tax cheat himself; no matter that he could not get elected as dogcatcher in our district. He is a power to contend with. And he is not alone. Tax cheats and corrupt people abound in Congress.

With term limits, we admittedly will lose some good people. Nonetheless, the firmly entrenched Barney Franks, Nancy Pelosis and a host of others keep new blood from bringing in new ideas.

The first thing a junior senator hears is, "Sit down and be quiet until you have been here awhile." But we, the public, want newcomers like Scott Brown to speak out. Term limits will remind Congress that his seat and all the others belong to the people, and the people demand to be heard.

Now.

Allan Jefferys, a former New York theater critic and newsman, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at oldjeff@embarqmail.com.

Roswell Mayor Term Limits OK'd

WSB Radio

(WSB Radio) Jere Wood has been mayor of Roswell for a long time. And now, thanks to his efforts, his time might be running short.

The city council, at the insistence of Wood, has voted to impose term limits on the mayor's position.

Under the measure, the next mayor, whether it's Wood or someone else, will be limited to three terms.

Wood argued for the limits, saying they force mayors to have to become leaders, rather than becoming complacent.

Wood was elected to a fourth four year term last month. He was first voted into office in 1997, defeating W.L. "Pug" Mabry, who had been Roswell's mayor for 32 years. One of Wood's campaign promises at that time was to get Roswell term limits for the mayor.

During his first two terms as mayor, Wood tried to convince the city council to approve limits, but was unsuccessful.

The council, this time, passed term limits with only one dissenting vote.

Poll: NYers support term limits, capping spending

Business First

A new poll shows New York voters support Gov. David Paterson’s quest to cap state spending and enact term limits—but most still wouldn’t vote for him.

The Siena (College) Research Institute published the poll on Monday.

In the poll, 60 percent of voters said they would prefer someone other than Paterson in gubernatorial elections this year. Twenty-one percent said they would vote for Paterson, while 19 percent said they weren’t sure or had no opinion.

A majority of voters instead want state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to run for governor this year, leaving Paterson in a “very weak” electoral position, said poll spokesman Steven Greenberg.

Still, voters supported Paterson’s call to limit state spending by a 74-18 margin. Two-thirds of poll respondents said they supported his call to enact term limits on statewide officials and all legislators.

And, Paterson’s favorability rating inched up for the third straight month. Now, 38 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of Paterson, while 52 percent have an unfavorable opinion; 10 percent weren’t sure or had no opinion.

In a separate question, 45 percent of voters said Paterson should raise state taxes to erase the state’s estimated $9 billion budget deficit; 34 percent said Paterson should instead propose “significant cuts” in spending on education and health care, which are the two largest parts of the state budget. Twenty-two percent said they weren’t sure, or had no opinion.

The poll was conducted Jan. 10-14 via telephone calls to 806 registered New York voters. The margin of error is 3.5 percentage points

Time for term limits

The Citizen.com

Back to the future — or something like that.

The last time Americans got wound up about the assorted misfeasances and incompetencies of the U.S. Congress, the national conversation opened itself to the possibility of term limits for the members.

That’s to say, no member could serve more than “X” number of consecutive terms. On completing that sacrosanct number, the member would remove from his office all photos, plaques and testaments to his indispensability. He would suddenly become dispensable — another way of saying human.

This was in the early ‘90s, when incrusted Democrats had a choke-hold on the House of Representatives (though not the Senate). There was then a head of steam for measures to make lawmakers quit at a time predetermined so that — as a catch phrase had it — they could return home to live under the laws they had made.

There was a lot of sentimentality and naivete to the notion. First in line was the belief that the turkeys would vote for Thanksgiving. Why on earth should the great and powerful dull their own magnificence by agreeing to quit at a date specified and turn the job over to others?

A second consideration was, why assume they’d go home to live under their own laws when imperial Washington offered so many temptations — contracts, say, for lobbying or jobs in the presidential administration?

Term limits made some headway here and there around the country, e.g., California, but in Washington, all it generally excited was personal pledges and expressions of ambiguous sentiment.

Comes 2010. It would seem time philosophically, leave aside practically, to slap a little paint on the matter and exhibit it once more in the sunshine. Permit an old hand in the term limits cheering section to suggest that members of both parties, in both houses of Congress, would benefit from legal, not just moral, limitations as to the time permitted them in a particular national office. More to the point, the country would likely benefit.

As I say, don’t bet the mortgage on early enactment of term limits. On the other hand, with a Rasmussen poll showing nearly half of Americans believe people randomly picked from the telephone directory would make better laws than the present Congress, let us not overestimate the public’s veneration for ancient behavioral patterns.

The term limits movement of almost two decades ago latched onto a fundamental truth about human nature and politics, to wit, when people stay too long in power, they tend to get rusty, bored and corrupt. They see themselves as politically immortal, when their own feet are just as clay-caked as anyone else’s. At this point, what would refresh them better than rest — a change of scenery and vocation.

Cincinnatus, back in the fifth century B.C., had it about right when twice he accepted an invitation to become dictator during local emergencies, then, when everything was under control, resigned — went back to the plow he had earlier left. It was a precedent that George Washington followed, consciously perhaps, when he returned to Mount Vernon upon helping the new republic launch itself.

Renunciation is the virtue that slashes like a kitchen knife when seized. Members of Congress, immersed in their privileges and perquisites, aren’t the renouncing kind. Aides, lobbyists, reporters, sycophants of one sort or another give Sen. A or Congressman B the most subversive gift possible — the big head. Yes, sir (it goes), he’s the man, she’s the woman, gotta stay in there, can’t quit now, no, can’t quit ever, where’s that phone, got to make some fundraising calls.

A term limits law, or constitutional amendment, wouldn’t save the country from egoism, stupidity and the lust for eternal power (cf. California). It might at that mitigate the severest consequences of eternal staying on, in the manner of West Virginia’s 92-year-old Robert Byrd or, for that matter, Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts’ permanent senator until the divine quorum call reached him after 47 years.

As the old saying goes, there oughta be a law. Really.

Proposed amendment would apply term limits to all statewide officeholders

The Fulton Sun

JEFFERSON CITY -- The governor and treasurer already have them, and state Rep. Jason Smith thinks the other four statewide officeholders should have term limits, too.

Smith on Wednesday filed a proposed constitutional amendment to place the same two-term, eight-year limit on the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, auditor and attorney general that the Constitution already places on the governor and state treasurer.

"I believe that the terms of all executive offices and legislators should be consistent," said Smith, R-Salem, in a news release. "One office holder should not be allowed eight years in office while others are allowed to hold the position indefinitely."

Democrat James Kirkpatrick holds the state record -- five terms as secretary of state, from 1965-85.

Democrat Haskell Holman's 18 years as state auditor -- from 1953, when he replaced W.H. Holmes, who died in office, until 1971 -- held statewide office the second-longest.

And Gov. Jay Nixon's 16 years as attorney general, from 1993-2009, is third on the list.

Former State Auditor Margaret Kelly was fourth, with nearly 15 years from 1984-99.

Under Smith's proposal, as with the governor and treasurer now, a person actually could serve up to 10 years in a job, if they served no more than two years to complete a term someone else originally won in an election -- such as a lieutenant governor succeeding a governor who left office before his term had been finished.

Smith's proposal is similar to an initiative petition that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan approved for circulation a year ago.

That petition was submitted for the group "Term Limits for Missouri" by St. Louis lawyer Ed Martin, a former chief of staff in Gov. Matt Blunt's administration and now a GOP candidate for Congress opposing incumbent Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis.

In an e-mail Wednesday afternoon, Martin said: "We started gathering petitions last year after the petition had been approved. It is an all-volunteer effort and, without help from other groups, is unlikely to get enough signatures."

So, he also likes Smith's proposal.

"Rep. Smith's (resolution) is a needed change and Term Limits for Missouri supports his effort.

"Term limits is a proven good government effort: it allows more citizens to serve and helps keep power from being centralized in a few hands for decades. There is no good reason that certain statewide offices are not term-limited, and a change is overdue."

Smith's proposal is a joint resolution, requiring the approval of majorities in both the House and Senate before the proposed constitutional amendment can be placed on the Nov. 2, 2010, ballot.

If the issue does reach that ballot, it requires a simple majority to become part of the Constitution.

Time for Term Limits

Times Union

How can we use terms like integrity and leadership when it comes to state Sen. Hiram Monserrate? He should be kicked out of the Senate and kept out for good.

Our legislators should be held to the highest standard of conduct if they are to remain in such a privileged position. I firmly believe that we should give all state legislators a failing grade and demonstrate it by voting every last one out and starting over again with some serious changes.

Term limits should be a mandate. We will never make positive strides to benefit citizens of the state until we can get a group of legislators who have some moral fiber and who truly care about someone other than themselves.

If you were to poll the citizenry of the state, you would surely find that they collectively hold the Legislature in very low esteem, somewhere between a pickpocket and a burglar. Legislators have no one to blame but themselves.

CLIFF ROCQUE

Schroon Lake

Time for Term Limits

Real Clear Politics

By William Murchison

Back to the future -- or something like that.

The last time Americans got wound up about the assorted misfeasances and incompetencies of the U.S. Congress, the national conversation opened itself to the possibility of term limits for the members. That's to say, no member could serve more than "X" number of consecutive terms. On completing that sacrosanct number, the member would remove from his office all photos, plaques and testaments to his indispensability. He would suddenly become dispensable -- another way of saying human.

This was in the early '90s, when incrusted Democrats had a choke hold on the House of Representatives (though not the Senate). There was then a head of steam for measures to make lawmakers quit at a time predetermined so that -- as a catch phrase had it -- they could return home to live under the laws they had made.

There was a lot of sentimentality and naivete to the notion. First in line was the belief that the turkeys would vote for Thanksgiving. Why on earth should the great and powerful dull their own magnificence by agreeing to quit at a date specified and turn the job over to others? A second consideration was, why assume they'd go home to live under their own laws when imperial Washington offered so many temptations -- contracts, say, for lobbying or jobs in the presidential administration?

Term limits made some headway here and there around the country, e.g., California, but in Washington, all it generally excited was personal pledges and expressions of ambiguous sentiment.

Comes 2010. It would seem time philosophically, leave aside practically, to slap a little paint on the matter and exhibit it once more in the sunshine. Permit an old hand in the term limits cheering section to suggest that members of both parties, in both houses of Congress, would benefit from legal, not just moral, limitations as to the time permitted them in a particular national office. More to the point, the country would likely benefit.

As I say, don't bet the mortgage on early enactment of term limits. On the other hand, with a Rasmussen poll showing nearly half of Americans believe people randomly picked from the telephone directory would make better laws than the present Congress, let us not overestimate the public's veneration for ancient behavioral patterns.

The term limits movement of almost two decades ago latched onto a fundamental truth about human nature and politics, to wit, when people stay too long in power, they tend to get rusty, bored and corrupt. They see themselves as politically immortal, when their own feet are just as clay-caked as anyone else's. At this point, what would refresh them better than rest -- a change of scenery and vocation.

Cincinnatus, back in the fifth century B.C., had it about right when twice he accepted an invitation to become dictator during local emergencies, then, when everything was under control, resigned -- went back to the plow he had earlier left. It was a precedent that George Washington followed, consciously perhaps, when he returned to Mount Vernon upon helping the new republic launch itself.

Renunciation is the virtue that slashes like a kitchen knife when seized. Members of Congress, immersed in their privileges and perquisites, aren't the renouncing kind. Aides, lobbyists, reporters, sycophants of one sort or another give Sen. A or Congressman B the most subversive gift possible -- the big head. Yes, sir (it goes), he's the man, she's the woman, gotta stay in there, can't quit now, no, can't quit ever, where's that phone, got to make some fundraising calls.

A term limits law, or constitutional amendment, wouldn't save the country from egoism, stupidity and the lust for eternal power (cf. California). It might at that mitigate the severest consequences of eternal staying on, in the manner of West Virginia's 92-year-old Robert Byrd or, for that matter, Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts' permanent senator until the divine quorum call reached him after 47 years.

As the old saying goes, there oughta be a law. Really.

Term limits needed for Congressmen

NY Times

To the Editor:

Re "Failed State” (editorial, Dec. 31):

The Times, in its crusade against “scandal and irresponsibility” in Albany (as well as the “sleaze and incompetence” of New York state leaders), is ignoring an obvious and effective solution: term limits. By endorsing what Thomas Jefferson called mandatory rotation in office, you could add a potent weapon to your reform agenda.

With only 30 incumbents in the general elections having been beaten in the last 22 years, term limits on the Legislature in Albany will foster more competitive elections.

Previously, you championed more competitive elections as a way of ushering in a “truly reform-minded generation of politicians” (“To Reform Albany: Start Here,” editorial, Aug. 8, 2009).

Why, then, would you not support the one reform that could make that goal a reality?

Albany needs reforms that treat the underlying disease, not just its symptoms — and none of these reforms are more vital than term limits.

Howard Rich
New York, Jan. 1, 2010

Term limits needed for Congressmen

Hattiesburg American

As a nation we are in a big mess and all I hear is Democrats blaming Republicans and Republicans blaming Democrats. Both parties are at fault and it is time for the individual voters to do something about it. We must throw the whole bunch out of office.

We need a constitutional amendment which restricts members of Congress to no more than two terms. Obviously, members of Congress would never vote such a restriction on themselves, but, through the referendum process, the voters can bypass Congress and pass such an amendment. It takes time, but can be done.

Such an amendment could also restrict former congressmen from having any influence on current members. There could also be included campaign financing to be paid out of budget surpluses - no surplus, no funding. And, except for individual campaign contributions, no other source of campaign financing would be allowed.

We must take back our country from the special interest-controlled congress and term limits is the answer.

Walter Ellington

Clinton

Election laws in play as Kelly, Baxley try House flip

Ocala.com

State Rep. Kurt Kelly's decision to run for Congress, and a subsequent announcement by Dennis Baxley, Kelly's predecessor, that he will run for his old seat, offers voters a lesson in the nuances of election laws.

Nothing in federal or state law forces Kelly, an Ocala Republican, to resign his District 24 seat in order to run for his party's nomination to challenge Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson of Orlando.

Although Florida has what is known as a "resign-to-run" law that forces people to give up their office should they seek another, that statute only applies to elected or appointed officials who seek a state or local office whose term conflicts with that of the one they already hold. It does not apply to officials who seek federal office.

Joe Little, a constitutional law professor at the University of Florida's law school, says the state couldn't prescribe such regulations anyway, since the U.S. Constitution spells out the qualifications for Congress.

Continue Reading Election Laws in play as Kelly, Baxley try house flip

Neumann Proposes Term Limits For Lawmakers, Others

WKRG.com

Madison, Wis - Saying he would hold himself to just two terms in office if elected governor, Republican Mark Neumann on Monday came out in support of limiting all state lawmakers and constitutional officers to no more than 12 years in office.

Neumann, a former two-term U.S. congressman, also called for allowing citizens to circulate petitions to get proposed law and constitutional changes on the ballot for voter approval.

None of the changes will be easily made, and even if elected governor Neumann would have no power to enact them.

The proposals would require amending the Wisconsin Constitution, an arduous three-vote process that takes years. Both houses of the Legislature must approve any proposed constitutional amendments twice, over at least two years, before they are then put to voters to decide whether to enact them.

And when it comes to term limits, politicians are loathe to vote themselves out of office.

The last time it came up in Wisconsin, in 2007, the idea gathered only four co-sponsors, never got a public hearing, and quietly died.

"The chances of the Wisconsin Legislature imposing term limits on itself are about the same as the Legislature turning the state Capitol into a bed-and-breakfast," said conservative interest group the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute in a report last year.

Even so, Neumann said in a release announcing his support for the proposals that they should be easy to enact because they would help to rebuild trust between government and the people.

Even Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle tacitly supported term limits when he announced in August that he wouldn't seek a third term, saying limiting governors to two terms is the norm across the country and stepping aside after that period allows for people with new ideas to come forward.

Neumann's term limit proposal would apply to the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, treasurer, secretary of state, state superintendent of public instruction and members of both the state Senate and Assembly. Constitutional officers and Senate members would be limited to three, four-year terms. Assembly members could serve six, two-year terms only.

Fifteen states have term limits for state lawmakers and 36 have them for the governor.

Neumann, along with Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, are the two highest profile Republican candidates in the race. The primary is Sept. 7 and the general election is Nov. 2.

Walker's campaign had no immediate response Monday to Neumann's proposals.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is the biggest name Democrat running. His spokesman Phil Walzak had no immediate comment.

Neumann spent four years representing southeast Wisconsin in Congress between 1995 and 1999 but has been out of politics since narrowly losing against U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold in 1998. He currently works as a real estate developer and home builder in the Milwaukee area.

Neumann on Monday also proposed:

Requiring the Legislature to make public any major spending proposal at least five days before a vote to pass it.

Prohibiting donations to all state lawmakers and constitutional officers from an employee of a business at any time while that business's bid for a contract is being considered by any state government agency.

Prohibiting any government employees appointed by the governor from contributing to his campaign or organizing fundraising efforts.